Posts Tagged ‘“km issues”’

Learning from the Past – Risk Management at National Scale Using PHR

July 23, 2014

Introduction

The 2014 World Development Report from the World Bank sketches how confronting risks, preparing for them, and adopting appropriate coping strategies can make a vast difference in outcomes, sometimes at an epic scale. In 2010, both Haiti and Chile were victims of large natural disasters of similar destructive capacity. Both countries experienced serious earthquakes, the larger of which struck Chile. However, while Chile suffered a loss of 300 lives as a result, Haiti lost in the order of 250,000 lives.

The World Bank attributes this to several causes, one of which is the degree to which Chile learned from a previous experience and invested in insurance, undertook preparation to reduce risk, and improved their capacity to cope with the aftereffects of future disasters. Chile confronted the lessons of the previous disaster, there was a national awareness, and as a result, building codes were changed, and the country took insurance both against damage and in terms of divestiture of investments and commerce. These changes allowed Chile to suffer less damage to people and infrastructure, recover faster from the shock economically, and to learn from what worked and what did not. Without these investments, it is believed that Chile’s death toll in the 2010 earthquake would have been of an even greater magnitude than that of Haiti.

The WDR2014 report is an evolution from early risk management approaches, and instead of the highly technical perspective taken in earlier years, the report views risk management as a long-term and strategic process. The WDR2014 report sketches two principles in risk management: To be realistic, and to build foundations. In the former, they are recommending that risk reduction attempts be pragmatic and simple rather than theoretical and extensive, and in the latter case, they are advising that risk reduction efforts build on each other and take a long-term view. To comply with this advice and to manage risk effectively requires that the efforts take into account several obstacles, such as the information requirements of the population involved, human behavior and change, resources available, and the uncertainty of risk.

Risk Management in the WDR2014 report thus rests on four “pillars”

  • Knowledge
  • Insurance
  • Protection
  • Coping

The focus of this article takes a cue from the two principles, and offers a narrow perspective on a single issue, that of the health records of people forced to migrate because of shocks such as natural disasters. This focus addresses the knowledge needs when receiving healthcare organizations must care for refugees and people affected by shocks such as natural disasters, but could hold true for any form of shock in which healthcare delivery was disrupted. The paper addresses a form of insurance in the shape of planning for eventualities, protection from medical delays and mistakes, and a coping strategy for dealing with migrant patients or disrupted healthcare delivery.

Case: Typhoon Haiyan 2013

In November of 2013, typhoon Haiyan reached the Philippines with the strongest winds ever recorded. As a result, the infrastructure was severely damaged, a large proportion of the population was displaced, and over six-thousand people died. The Philippines comprise over 7,000 islands, and few hospitals or health care providers (HCP) have Electronic Health Records (EHR). One highly specific problem was that people’s health records became unavailable both for those who fled and to those who stayed but were unable to reach their HCP.

For this article, a local doctor providing endocrine care was interviewed on Twitter using the hashtag #wdrrisk.

Throughout the typhoon, many Tacloban residents went to Manila either to escape danger or join family or friends who had left, and of these were people who were already ill with current or long-term chronic illnesses such as cancer, or became ill while away from their homes in Tacloban. Few people had made provision to take their medical records with them, and valuable medical information such as test results was lost or otherwise not available to HCPs in Manila.

The doctor interviewed for this paper is an endocrine specialist based in Manila, and saw many patients who were refugees from Tacloban. Patients typically had no documentation of their medical history, and no ability to access the facilities in Tacloban where their records were kept. Because few medical facilities in the region use electronic records available through the cloud, even those patients whose providers were on an EHR lacked the ability to access their records. Patients typically have only a vague recollection of what tests or procedures they have previously undergone, when these were carried out, and what the results were. As a result, patients without medical records experienced increased risks, delayed care, and additional burden of repeated tests. Where patients were on medication, a lack of a definitive history regarding dosages, patient reactions, and allergies required that HCPs started drug regimens from base dosages and take a conservative and cautious approach in order to avoid potential overdose or adverse reactions. As a result, many patients may have experienced sub-optimal results until the drug selection and dosages were calibrated to their individual needs and responses.

The doctor reported that repeating tests delayed treatment, increased patient risk, and raised the cost of care, but some tests cannot be repeated at all because the results are based on historical progression of a condition. The doctor was unable to fill in the blanks in some cases, and was left with an incomplete clinical picture that increased patient risk. For example, for some chronic patients the doctor needed histology test results that are helpful in cancer staging and which could not be reconstructed. Without these historical data, the doctor had uncertainty and had to make best estimates that may have increased patient risk or resulted in sub-optimal care. The lack of a longitudinal view of these patient’s history and healthcare journey, lost or missing data, and gaps in patient history increased the risk of inappropriate or ineffective care.

Personal Health Records

In order to provide effective healthcare, clinicians and other providers need information related to the patient’s present condition, past medical history, and core health records such as medication use, existing conditions and treatment, and medical images, prescriptions, and procedures. These are usually kept by the person’s primary care facility, and may be kept either as physical records such as patient files, x-ray plates, and the like, or as electronic records and images. However, when the patient migrates or their provider’s infrastructure is disrupted, these records may be unavailable. Personal Health Records (PHR) are an alternative that gives individuals the ability to either carry their health records on removable storage such as thumb drives, DVD, etc. or to link to them on the web using a secure repository, e.g. Microsoft HealthVault.

PHR puts the patient’s medical history in their own hands in a way that is likely to be transportable during a disaster, and unlike paper records, can be encrypted and secured in order to maintain patient privacy. The downside is that PHR relies on a certain level of technology and computer literacy on the part of the patient to realize the full benefits. However, simply providing the patient with their records in the form of an encrypted memory stick requires minimal computer literacy on the part of the patient, and is more likely to accompany the patient and be available during disasters than paper records.

The advantages of having PHR are:

  • Faster triaging leading to fewer delays in care
  • Definitive drug and test data, enabling better targeting of treatment
  • Longitudinal views of illness progression, allowing more appropriate treatment and drug dosing
  • Documented endorsement back to their home town HCP, allowing better continuity of care

Considerations

Tacloban had been hit previously by natural disasters, and although many aspects of the four pillars of Knowledge, Insurance, Protection, and Coping had been addressed with regard to physical infrastructure and administrative processes, the need for maintaining the fidelity of medical histories was not adequately addressed. Lack of learning from those events with regard to medical records resulted in preventable morbidity and mortality across the region, but there is hope for improvements due to new frameworks. The PHR framework for the Philippines described by Dr. Alvin Marcelo outlines a way in which lessons from Haiyan and other natural disasters in the Philippines could be put to use in creating a way to utilize PHR to avoid losing valuable medical data, and reduced cost, patient risk, and delays in provision of care during disasters.

Acknowledgment

This paper was developed as a result of interactions with the participants of the #HealthXPh tweetchat where the issue was first discussed. Further thanks go to #HCLDR, #BioEthx, and #HCSM tweet groups. A special thank you is due to Dr. Iris Thiele Isip Tan for her willingness to be interviewed online for this paper and for providing insight into the effects of not having access to patient history during disasters. Doc Iris also provided the links to the PHR framework created by Dr. Marcelo.

Why KM isn’t going away anytime soon

September 4, 2012

There have been a fair number of people in the blogosphere over the last few years who have trumpeted that KM is “Dead” – some of them mean it in an ironic way or simply as a provocative hook to get eyeballs on their blogs, some think the way we understand KM is changing and that the old ways are “dead”, and some actually believe that KM is a term best ceded to IT and that the next shiny thing beckons – be that complexity, agile, or something else.

The real acid test is whether there is an increase in the number of jobs that are either about KM or require some degree of expertise in it, and whether they mention KM activities or compliance with KM practices as an essential part of jobs – But this is something I can’t answer just yet, since getting Monster, Indeed, etc. to pony up data on what KM jobs there were over the past decades is not easy.

Until then, let’s look at three things that would individually drive a need for Knowledge Management.

  1. Business variance and volatility – i.e. “Turbulence”
  2. Increase in the share of firm’s market capitalization due to Intangible Assets
  3. Demographics

My position is that the swell produced by each of these three market dynamics would individually create a need for Knowledge Management, but that collectively they make it an imperative – firms that do not get this right are in my view already dead men walking.

Turbulence

One of the markers I look for in firms to tell me if Knowledge Management is likely to deliver ROI, is the degree to which they are subject to variation and volatility. To get a metric on that I measure inter alia the following:

  • Change in regulations, laws, technologies, and players in their market space.
  • Product churn and variation
  • Staff turnover, skills variation, and performance variation.

Many economists have a similar measure that they simply call “Turbulence”
Here’s an interesting image that is typical of a measure of turbulence that just keeps showing up wherever one looks. It is a measure of business change in terms of new startups, mergers & acquisitions, business closures, etc.

This example is focused on healthcare, but as I said, the same shape keeps showing up – very little turbulence in the decades prior to the 70’s, with an explosion in the 90’s, and a small amount of calming running through the oughts, but no sign of anything like a return to the stable days of the 50’s and 60’s.

(HBR, 2012)

This is the “new normal” of the business world, with turbulence of an order of magnitude higher than what was previously “normal” and a status quo in which turbulence is a constant companion.
The days of a person doing the same job for decades, or a firm staying in the same business, or ownership of the firm staying constant are gone and never to return – and consequently, the ability to acquire knowledge fast, to be able to use it effectively, and to be able to “manage” one’s knowledge assets both tacit and explicit are critical to survival both for individuals and for organizations.

Intangible Assets

As per the image from Savage (1996) there was a time when “wealth” pretty much meant owning land – Being a big landowner meant having status, position, power.
Then it shifted to access to labour and wealth meant being able to acquire, mobilize, and manage a workforce.
Then it was having access to capital to fund business operations.

… and now it means controlling knowledge.

(Savage, 1996)

Over the last century, the proportion the market value of a publicly-traded firm that an auditor could capture with the balance-sheet in one hand and a pencil in the other has gone from over 90% at the start of the 1900’s to a low of under 20% in the 2010’s. The balance is made up mostly of “Intangible Capital”, and was often tossed into a bucket marked “goodwill”.

(Ocean-Tomo, 2010)

In fact, if you look at the data from Ocean Tomo, just since 1975 the proportion of market value of the S&P 500 has gone from just 17% to 80% in 2010.

So picture this if you will – you are an investor, and you have a bag of cash and want to grow it by purchasing a firm that you believe stands ready to take advantage of new needs and to generate a tidy profit for you (or your backers). You send in the bean-counters, and they take stock of the firm, ticking off as they walk the premises every line item on the balance sheet – raw materials, buildings, plant and equipment, finished goods, cash in hand, etc. By the time they have met with your banker (who might also want to see the results), and have walked the floor, they could give you circa 1910, an account that was close to 90% accurate as to the worth of the firm.

No doubt you would be happy with this statement of affairs and you could make the purchase with not too many sleepless nights.
Barring unforeseen circumstance, all should be well and the small amount that was unaccounted for and lies in the entry marked “goodwill” was merely icing, and if push came to shove you could just sell off the assets and still be in the black.

Fast forward to 2012 and your accountants return to you a balance sheet and inventory that reflect only 20% of the value of the firm, and they report that they think that maybe there is another 80% hidden in the “goodwill” line, but they aren’t sure. It may be 0%, it might be 90%, they just don’t know.
You spend days with your stomach churning, and if you represent investors, you fret over how you will explain this.

At this point investors, bankers, analysts, and increasingly shareholders, are simply not satisfied.
Leaving 80% of the value of a firm to guesswork simply is not acceptable, and they have various plans afoot to force firms to identify the value of their intangibles – ranging from the SHRM attempt to have value metrics for Human Capital, to more complex evaluations of the worth of a firm’s knowledge.

2012 saw some banks put dollar value against patents for the purposes of loan collateral, and who can forget all the patent auctions of 2011-2012, with more no doubt coming.
IC is no longer something that is seen as a bit of icing, it is now the major part of the cake itself – >80% in fact.

Demographic Change

We talk a lot about the “Baby Boomers” and their immanent retirement, but have you ever actually seen it?

Here is what a population pyramid for Germany looks like:

(Source US Census Bureau 2012)

What this means is that there are way fewer people in each age-group following those who are now at the peaks of their career, and the number of people entering the job market won’t be able to fill the spots as the groups above them shift up and the oldest shift out. The bulk of that 80% of value represented by IC lies in the skills, knowledge, and traits of the knowledge workers you employ – and generally the older ones are the most valuable to you. They know how, they know what and when, and most of all, they know why.

If you create a population pyramid for the Knowledge Workers in your firm, you might be in for a nasty shock (especially those of you with a need for highly-skilled practitioners such as engineers, planners, and managers) – you simply might not have enough people to replace the older skilled workers as they shift out of the job market, and you don’t have all that long to figure out what to do. In fact, in some firms it is already too late, they are simply going to go bust as their older and most experienced and qualified people retire.
The best such firms can do is plan for a somewhat orderly shutdown.

Knowledge Management

Let’s agree not to play “definition” bingo and to go down the rabbit-hole of the myriad somewhat-overlapping definitions of “Knowledge Management”, and suffice it to say that what we are trying to achieve is to have a clear picture of what the organization needs to know in order to execute its operational activities, to organize, regulate, control that required knowledge, and to maintain levels of it sufficient to meet operational needs.
So if we were to lay out an ISO9000 diagram of all the operational processes necessary to achieve the organization’s tier-1 goals, and then determine for each activity in the flow what the person would need to know, we would arrive at a list of what knowledge was minimally necessary (and perhaps not even sufficient) to meet EBITDA and other requirements.

The terrain in which KM practitioners operate is for the most part that of Intangible Capital, as depicted below.

(Adams & Oleksak, 2010)

The role of the person(s) responsible for Knowledge Management in the organization would be to see that the needs for knowledge were identified, to identify and measure the degree to which these were met, and have a plan and processes to make sure that the organization acquired, maintained, and put to work that knowledge in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible.

This is not going to be the IT guy any more than the IT guy is responsible for running the finances of the organization.

Conclusion

There has never been another time during which control over knowledge assets has been more important, and firms that do not have a robust knowledge management practice humming along will experience very high rates of failure as we track forward.
Far from being “dead”, knowledge management is going to be a significant determinant of which firms survive, and which roll over and sink as the combined effect of turbulence, the value of IC, and demographic change swells up around them.

References

Adams, M., & Oleksak, M. (2010). Intangible Capital: Praeger.

HBR (2012). The Volatile U.S. Economy, Industry by Industry Retrieved 09/04/2012, 2012, from http://hbr.org/web/slideshows/the-volatile-us-economy-industry-by-industry/1-slide

Ocean-Tomo (2010). Intangible Asset Market Value Retrieved 09/04/2012, 2012, from http://www.oceantomo.com/media/newsreleases/Intangible-Asset-Market-Value-Study

Savage, C. M. (1996). Fifth generation management : co-creating through virtual enterprising, dynamic teaming, and knowledge networking (Rev. ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

~~~

Matthew Loxton is a Knowledge Management practitioner, and is a peer reviewer for the Journal of Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Matthew holds a Master’s degree in Knowledge Management from the University of Canberra, and provides pro-bono consulting in Knowledge Management and IT Governance to various medical institutions.

On the Psychosocial Determinants of CoP Success

August 30, 2012

Over the past few years I have been inching along with a thought – what if we looked at Knowledge Management through the lens of psychology, what would we see and what problems and issues would stand out in relief against the many prickly problems faced by KM practitioners.

One that stands out to me is the question of whether CoP success (and we get to define that however we like) is proportional to variation in how much and how its members share knowledge.
When we look at this from a psychosocial perspective, the question that pops out to me is why do some people share knowledge and others don’t, why do some share more and others less.
Is there perhaps a character trait that predisposes people to sharing knowledge, are their environmental pressures and social norms that cause the behavior to vary, are these relatively stable over time and place or do they vary according to some sort of root cause?

Success Factors

Here is the first pass at a list of facets for what constitutes “success” for a CoP:

  1. Longevity
  2. Membership Factors
    1. Member Count
    2. Member Seniority
    3. Member Diversity
  3. Activity
    1. Level of Interaction
    2. Number of meets
    3. Participation
  4. Productivity
    1. Creation of a Controlled Vocabulary
    2. Innovations
    3. Creation of Operational KPIs
    4. Documentation of Best Practices
    5. Degree of Outreach
    6. Efforts in Training & Induction
    7. Mentorship

Psychosocial Constructs

So far this is what I have noted as potential constructs.
The list needs to be expanded somewhat and then trimmed back to only those things that really contribute towards explaining variation in success.

  1. Emotional Intelligence
  2. Locus of Control
  3. OCEAN
  4. Individualism vs Communitarianism
  5. Emotional Investment
  6. Great Leader / Cult of Personality
  7. Action vs Reflection
  8. Conservatism vs Liberalism
  9. Q
  10. Creativity
  11. Frustration Tolerance

 

 

~~~

Matthew Loxton is a Knowledge Management practitioner, and is a peer reviewer for the Journal of Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Matthew holds a Master’s degree in Knowledge Management from the University of Canberra, and provides pro-bono consulting in Knowledge Management and IT Governance to various medical institutions.

It’s Time for a CKO

June 18, 2012

This blog post is a companion piece to the presentation I gave at the June ICKC Practitioner’s Meeting in which I presented slides and discussed some of the history of the launch of Knowledge Management, and why now is a critical time for firms to have a CKO. The title of the presentation was “Time for a CKO?” and was the second presentation of the meeting after “The New Economics” by Peter Bretscher.

The full slide-deck is also available both as a pdf and as a power-point slide deck at SlideShare

The Big Flop

In the 80’s and 90’s “The Knowledge Age” was the new fancy idea, and was taken up mainly by gurus like Drucker, but also several business academics.
Unfortunately the hype quickly overtook any ability to deliver, and consulting firms and software companies pounded money out of it and it quickly turned into a fad.

The idea was good, but the terrain was unprepared and consulting and software simply wasn’t going to deliver an ROI – Management didn’t know how to “do KM”, nobody was quite sure what the objectives were, and there simply were too few actual KM practitioners to even make a dent in it.

The result was an expensive, highly visible, and embarrassing belly-flop.

Back to Basics

So let’s just revisit two of the big moving parts driving KM and for the moment ignore all the practical reasons for KM like faster on-boarding, reducing waste, increasing quality, etc.

Two major changes have been underway historically – where wealth comes from, and the proportion of corporate value that is due to intangibles.

Firstly, wealth has changed in principle source from real-estate during feudal times, to being able to command labour and capital, to a current situation in which knowledge is the primary source of wealth.

Over the last hundred years, the measurement of corporate wealth has shown an increasing shift from property to ability. At the turn of the last century a firm’s wealth was made up primarily from its ownership of tangible assets – real estate, equipment, stock, and cash, but by the arrival of the early Knowledge Era, this had already been shifting

The current era is marked by a shift in the balance between the contribution to EBITDA and Market Capitalization in favor of Intangible Assets, and this is deemed likely to continue for several decades.

Secondly, the share of Intangible Capital as a share of the market value of firms has changed from a historical norm of <20% in the 1970’s to a current situation in which IC accounts for over 80% of a firm’s value.

illustration of the split between tangible and intangible value in the S&P 500 rising from 20/80 in the late 70’s to 80/20 in 2005

Knowledge was seen by Drucker, Senge, and others as being the only remaining way that firms can stay competitive in the Knowledge Era, and the major source of differentiation amongst competitors. These days every firm has more or less the same access to capital, raw materials, basic labor, and equipment as every other, and competitive advantage is no longer a matter of merely securing access to resources or materials.

The thing that separates Apple or 3M from the lower-order players is not physical assets but knowledge and acumen.

At the same time the people that track market valuation have been noticing an increase in the “Q” value that Tobin derived by comparing the market value of a firm with its physical assets and cash.
What has been increasingly obvious since the mid eighties is that the gap has been rapidly widening and that it seems to be stabilizing at around 80% of a firm’s market cap being attributable to intangible assets.

Source Adams & Oleksak (2010)

As per the International Association of IC Practitioners (IAICP), these include:

  1. Relationship Capital such as customer goodwill, reputation, and referrals
  2. Human Capital such as skills, knowhow, and expertise
  3. Structural Capital such as processes, patents, and trade secrets

They also add a fourth component, “Strategic Capital”, which I take as being the overlap of the first three that are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to achieve organizational strategic objectives.

Where Are We Now?

“Intellectual property has become one of the most important resources in the 21st century. It’s now an accepted fact that, just like financial capital or commodities or labor, IP is more than an economic asset – it also forms the basis of a global market”

Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel at IBM. (Forbes 2012)

Nonaka provides a model that distinguishes between knowledge that people can turn into documents (Explicit) and knowledge that either can’t be expressed or is locked away in their heads and practices and maybe even something they were unaware that they knew (Tacit). His model provides ways to move explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge (like studying and practicing the cello), tacit into tacit (like an apprenticeship), tacit into explicit, and explicit into explicit.

In support of this much has matured since his model was devised:

  • Many colleges and universities now offer master’s and doctoral programs for KM, and several institutes such as the Knowledge Management Institute and KM Pro offer certification courses for practitioners.
  • Several KM journals are published, amongst which the Journal of Knowledge Management Research & Practice has a rated impact factor.
  • KM interlocks with several other fields – at one end with the TQM, Lean/6Sigma movements, Applied Psychology, and Operational Research, and at the other end with Finance & Economics through Intellectual Asset Management and Intangible Asset Management

In addition, many large and innovative firms employ KM – from 3M to Xerox, including Deloitte, Dow Jones , Forrester, Fujitsu, Gartner, Google, HP, IBM, Lexis-Nexis, Pratt & Whitney, PWC, Siemens, World Bank , etc.

The primary areas of activity for KM are in workplace collaboration, management of innovation, the development of occupational communities in which standards of practice are refined, and corporate valuation through increased discovery and accounting of intellectual assets.

So where are we compared to the 80’s and 90’s?

The reasons for the lack of mainstreaming of institutionalized Knowledge Management have all fallen away, but the reluctance is still dwelling because of that memory in the minds of many executives. At the same time we have several emergent and increased pressures for institutionalizing Knowledge Management.

  • Technological changes and adoption rates continue to climb
  • You cannot simply put 80% of an organization’s worth under “goodwill”
  • The trade in IC has increased sharply over the last decade both for defensive and product development uses.

Simply put, IC is becoming fungible.

… and even being considered as collateral for loans by banks.

Return of the CKO

The CKO is not a new role, but one which holds increasing relevance in an age where knowledge and other intangible assets form such a large proportion of value, and in a time when retirement rate reaches 10,000 people per day in the US.

The CKO should be the structural keystone that brings IC and knowledge in particular under a single umbrella of scrutiny, management, and governance.
The days in which a firm’s knowledge could be left to the day to day operational dynamics are long gone, and it amounts to corporate suicide to leave knowledge management to chance.

To be sure, everyone “does” Knowledge Management, just like every firm “does finance”, but leaving it to chance implies that it is not likely to be done well, nor done in a fashion that enhances the likelihood of achieving organizational objectives. In much the same way that a CFO does not personally own all the money in the organization but provides governance, guidance, and a framework under which money and physical assets are managed and accounted for, the CKO should do the same for knowledge and IC.

Knowledge Management straddles all operations of an organization, and at its heart asks a simple duo of questions: how does a person know what they are meant to do, and how do they know how to do it?

In this sense KM overlaps on one side with HR/Recruitment in terms of what skills and experience a person needs to have prior to joining the organization in order to execute the assigned activities in their role.
KM also interfaces with Learning and Development in order to make good on knowledge that must be taught in addition to those “just-in time” job aids that must be presented to a worker at the time of execution in the form of knowledgebase articles.

On the valuation side, KM interfaces with Finance to establish value of knowledge artifacts and the abilities of staff.

KM provides both tactical and strategic support for the organizational mission as far as knowledge is concerned – from operational knowledge-bases, to Communities of Practice, to valuation of Intangible Capital such as trade secrets, methods, procedures, copyright, patents, etc.

In addition KM provides the framework and basis upon which those could be bundled or commoditized to make them available for franchising, leasing/licensing, or sale.

Is it For You?

The CKO role, and in fact organized and institutionalized Knowledge Management, is not for everyone, and the research shows consistently that there are several factors that are indicators that institutionalized KM and a CKO role would deliver a strong ROI.

The higher a firm rates on these items, the more likely there is to be a positive ROI for institutionalized Knowledge Management.
Here we deal with the three broad areas.

  1. The Business Model
  2. The Organizational Culture and Environment
  3. Volatility & Variability in the business terrain

Variability and Volatility deserve special attention since the more fluid and volatile the market, products, and labor pool are, the higher the need to be able to learn quickly and adapt fast and be able to lower the risks of volatility by having on-hand knowledge that represents the best and most current available.

To find out for yourself, try two surveys that I have built

  1. The KM Fit-test Survey
  2. The KMOL-C climate survey

Conclusion

The time to institutionalize Knowledge Management is now – the game has changed and all the old obstacles are either solved or no longer significant hurdles to implementing a formal process to gain control of IC.
There has never been a time in which pure knowledge in the form of know-how and know-who determine the value of a firm, and ongoing survival is going to depend on gaining a high degree of management capability over intangible assets.

~~~

Matthew Loxton is a Knowledge Management professional and holds a Master’s degree in Knowledge Management from the University of Canberra. Mr. Loxton has extensive international experience and is currently available as a Knowledge Management consultant or as a permanent employee at an organization that wishes to put knowledge to work.

We are getting Talent Wrong

April 19, 2012

A lot of people really enjoy the various talent shows that have rippled out across the world over the last decade – Britain Has Talent, America Has Talent, … and all the variants that stretch from Australia to Korea.

The shows of course serve up the maximum of weirdness and horrible lack of talent too, which perhaps says something about how deluded some people are about their abilities, and that performance requires not just passionate enthusiasm (or gall) but also excellence of ability.
To be really successful at anything, of course, requires more than just piles of eagerness, and some people are unskilled and also unaware of it.(Kruger and Dunning 1999; Hodges, Regehr et al. 2001)

I find the shows horrifying though, and I am left staring into space thinking that what the shows really demonstrate is that we have got something very, very wrong.

Let me explain.

It isn’t that I don’t also feel the emotional surge when some little child like Holly Steel or Jackie Evancho or Ronan Parke belt out a vocal with voices that belong more in the body of somebody in their 30’s with a lifetime of experience and training than in somebody under 12yrs old. The thing is that these people have more or less already been “discovered” early in life and are pretty much the “normal quota” of stunningly good performers. These are the ones that become a Sarah Brightman or a Celine Dion, and while their trajectories are in an early, nascent phase, they can be plotted out into the future with little stretch of the imagination.

One can look at Olivia Binfield the 7yr old poet and champion of animals, and it is easy to see her future mapped out ahead as the next Carol Ann Duffy or Jane Goodall.

I feel that same sense of wonder over them as the audience does, and these are the people that Simon Cowell means when he says that these are the “special, special talent” that he is there to find, but I think that these leave us so awe-struck that we miss the bigger picture.

The performers that chill me to the bone are the adults – Jamie Pugh (37), Julian Smith (40), Paul Potts (41), Susan Boyle (49), Fiona Mariah (50), or Janey Cutler (80).

These are adults whose talents have been available but unknown to anyone but themselves and their immediate circle for decades – at the time of his first public audition Jamie Pugh was driving a van as a day job and delivered pizza by night, Paul Potts sold cellphones, Fiona Mariah was a busker, and Janey’s singing was known only to local pubs in Lanarkshire.

For every Faryl Smith (12) or Zara Larsson (10) that can make your jaw drop in amazement, is there perhaps an eighty year old Janey who just never got heard until just two years before her death, or never at all?

One might think that at least there are shows like these that make some inroads into the numbers that we must be missing, but as such they only scrape the surface – they focus only on a very narrow band of human ability related to performance art, and there is no real equivalent to the rest of the spectrum of what people are capable of – There is for instance no mathematics, engineering, or general science equivalent to “X-Factor” or “America’s Got Talent“.

Happenstance discovery through game shows is really not a satisfactory way to deal with either our problems or with the planet’s talent, we simply should do better.

That is my story, and I am sticking to it.

References

Hodges, B., G. Regehr, et al. (2001). “Difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence: novice physicians who are unskilled and unaware of it.” Acad Med
76(10 Suppl): S87-9.

Kruger, J. and D. Dunning (1999). “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
77(6): 1121-1134.


%d bloggers like this: